Maria Cristina Messa, Italy’s Minister of the University and Research. Credit: Independent Photo Agency/Alamy Live News.
An initiative just launched by Italy’s Ministry of University and Research (MUR) makes two changes in Italy’s system of public research funding. It funds individual researchers instead of collaborative projects, and will be the first test of a new evaluation system, introduced with a law approved by the Parliament in July.
The initiative that started accepting proposals on 26 October and will close at the end of December, allocates €20 million to projects by junior researchers (up to €1 million each), and €30 million for projects by senior scientists (up to €1.5 million). Projects can last up to 5 years, and must be hosted by an Italian research institution.
Proposals will be evaluated by a new National Committee for Research Evaluation (CNVR), which replaces the previous National Committee of Research Guarantors (CNGR) and from now on will be in charge of all public grants. Funded with €5 million for 2021 and €20 million euros for 2022, the new Committee has more resources and broader tasks than the previous one, and 15 members instead of 7. A first version was appointed at the end of July by incorporating the previous CNGR and adding 8 members appointed by the research minister, Maria Cristina Messa. In future, 10 members will be chosen directly by the Minister, and five will be picked – one each – by the National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research Systems (ANVUR), the Conference of Rectors of Italian Universities (CRUI), the Council of presidents of public research bodies, the president of the European Research Council and the president of the European Science Foundation.
The initiative adopts many elements of a proposal sent to Messa in April by more than 80 Italian members of the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO), who asked to create individual grants for curiosity-driven research modelled on those of the European Research Council. Until now Italy had no such instrument: the main funding scheme for basic research is the ‘Projects of national interest’ (Progetti di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale - PRIN), which funds collaborative projects involving several universities or institutes.
The proposal stressed that individual grants are crucial for the careers of researchers, and also that they would need a new evaluation system. The way PRIN and other research projects are evaluated and selected for funding has often been criticised by the scientific community. Andrea Ballabio, director of the Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine in Pozzuoli and one of the letter’s signatories, laments the “inefficient and opaque evaluation, lack of meritocracy, absence of a final feedback, unregular timing of calls, frequently reshaped funds”.
The CNGR used to appoint panel members who in turn sent projects to referees. These were all Italian and came either from a list of reviewers compiled by the Ministry, the Register of Expert Peer-Reviewers for Italian Scientific Evaluation (REPRISE) or chosen individually in a discretionary manner. Both options had problems, says Irene Bozzoni, Professor of Molecular Biology at Sapienza Università di Roma who also signed the EMBO proposal. “Everybody could sign up to REPRISE, no matter the scientific quality and production of the reviewer, while the discretionary choice of reviewers “left room for bias and favouritism,” she says.
The April letter suggested copying the ERC peer-review system, based on panels for different sectors, composed of researchers who have previously won a ERC grant or have already been ERC panellists in the previous 10 years. These panels appoint the referees in charge of evaluating individual projects. An officer oversees the entire process to ensure, among other things, control of conflicts of interest.
Scientists contacted by Nature Italy say that private foundations, such as the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) or Telethon, also have effective evaluation models that could be adapted for public grants. Francesca Pasinelli, general manager of the Telethon Foundation that funds research into genetic disorders, says that good evaluation requires a strong managerial structure that handles calls and searches for appropriate referees. “Choosing peers is anything but trivial” she explains. “A scientific degree does not automatically qualify as a peer reviewer, who must be highly competent, still active in research, with no conflicts of interests”.
The new evaluation committee is working on its guidelines, and it is still unclear to what extent they will follow those models. For these individual grants, a first phase will be managed directly by CNVR members with some help from external experts in the main macro-sectors, in order to evaluate ideas and the applicants’ CVs. A second phase will be carried out by three external referees for each project, “whose profile should be close to the ERC model,” says Roberto Di Lauro, a medical geneticist who was recently appointed as CNVR member. “There are a lot of concerns about the REPRISE list inside the committee,” he says. “We are working to overcome it, putting a lot of emphasis on conflict of interests, transparence and meritocracy”.
The appointment of the CNVR has also attracted criticism. “With 10 out of 15 members directly appointed by the ministry, the separation between political activity and the autonomous mechanisms for projects selection has disappeared,” says Alberto Baccini, a professor of political economics at the University of Siena, and a member of an association of researchers and professors called Return on Academic Research ROARS).
Bozzoni thinks the new grants are an enormous progress for helping young people emerge, and is less worried about political appointments to the committee, as long as they select people of the right calibre. She says the EMBO group will monitor evaluation closely, and intervene again should meritocracy and transparency not be applied.
